A Classification of Agents and Entities Influencing
Law Enforcement Agencies in the United States
Joseph Treglia
Syracuse University
245 Hinds Hall
Syracuse, NY
1 (315) 443-2911
jvtregli@syr.edu
ABSTRACT
This work introduces a typology for classifying the entities and
groups that influence law enforcement agencies in the United
States. The purpose here is to begin the process of creating a
more formal taxonomy to better understand the types of
influences that bear upon law enforcement agencies. Through
that work we will better understand policy and decision making
in this distinct arena and improve law enforcement operations.
Using a soft systems approach this initial work involved a broad
search of entities that may influence law enforcement agencies.
The search involved extensive internet keyword searches,
reviews of paper publications and field observation. In
consultation with other researchers the list was reviewed and
analyzed for classification. Seven distinctive categories were
identified; Law Enforcement, Government, Quasi-Government,
Associations, Vendors, Media and People. The resulting
typology may be used as a basis for further research in the area
of law enforcement organizational behavior, policy development
and program implementation. This work will lead to a more
formal taxonomy for understanding these relationships.
enforcement agencies fulfill their individual missions by creating a
better understanding of the factors that influence their decision
making and operation and the environment they work in.
2. PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
Keywords
We wish to improve law enforcement operations. Here we try for
the first time to comprehensively identify and classify stakeholders
that influence law enforcement agencies. Having such a typology
will stimulate thinking and serve as a basis for theory development
in this area. Using a soft systems methodology we introduce a
comprehensive schema for categorizing law enforcement
stakeholders. Law enforcement organizations have distinct
member non-member identification; a minimum requirement for
formal organizations (Aldrich & Herker, 1977). Through this work
we will identify significant actors or entities that have influence
within and across the boundaries in this environment and assess
their relative impacts.
For our purposes law enforcement agency is defined as one
whose mission involves the enforcement of laws and whose
personnel are authorized to make arrests and carry firearms. There
are many agencies who are involved in investigations that do not
make arrests or carry firearms and these agencies are not included
here so that we may proceed with an identifiable group
consistently across federal and local levels. These agencies will be
listed where they interact with or influence law enforcement
agencies. An example is the case of the Child Protective Service in
New York State; these investigators of child abuse have
investigative responsibility but do not carry firearms and they
interact routinely with law enforcement. Some federal or other law
enforcement agencies may not have the granted authority to carry
firearms in all states. In these cases the agency qualifies as a law
enforcement agency if the agency has arrest power and authority to
carry firearms in even one location or jurisdiction.
Influence, Classification, Stakeholders, Typology, Law
Enforcement, Collaboration, Organization.
3. PROBLEMS
Categories and Subject Descriptors
H.1.0 [Information Systems] Models and Principles - General
K.4.1 [Computers and Society] Public Policy Issues – Use.
K.6.1 [Management of Computing and Information Systems]
Project and People Management – Strategic Information
Systems Planning.
General Terms
Human Factors, Standardization, Theory.
1. INTRODUCTION
“Policing in most societies exists in a state of 'dynamic tension'
between forces that tend to isolate it and those that tend to
integrate its functioning with other social structures” (Clark,
1965). In truth law enforcement agencies engage with an
extensive network of formal and informal contacts both on and
off the job. It is important to understand these contacts and their
potential influence in agency operations and activity yet little
work has been done in this particular area (McKelvey, 1975;
Mills & Newton Margulies, 1980; Pugh, Hickson, & Hinings,
1969; Reiss, 1992). Our interest is in improving the way law
There is significant overlap in areas of jurisdiction and
responsibility and there are a variety of ways in which individual
agencies choose to organize themselves. We identify agencies and
entities that influence or impact law enforcement decision making
and activity at the organizational level. Influencers include those
that interact internationally, nationally, by state, regionally or
locally. Influencing entities or agencies may have influence on
agencies that do not follow geographical or political boundaries.
Products or services may be used by agencies in a variety of
jurisdictions without geographic or political linkage. There are
cases where personal contact or affiliation will have a strong
impact, such as the case where an executive member has a close
relative in some service industry and this relationship causes that
company to have closer ties to the police agency than they may
have if there were no outside connection. For this part of the
study we include the vendor agency as having influence or being
a stakeholder to that law enforcement agency because there is
some interest being served at the agency level. If it were the
case that the close family relative had a business that had
nothing to do with the law enforcement agency interest it is
unlikely that even with the familial tie that there would be any
collaboration or influence. This is to say that it is valid to
investigate agencies and entities which influence or are
stakeholders to law enforcement even where there may be
outside influences or interests that exist.
Sources including Law Enforcement Online (LEO), Google and
DMOZ, the online open directory project at http://dmoz.org, and
Wikipedia were used to identify agencies, businesses, stakeholders
and associates. Results from these searches resulted in more than
6,000 separate entries of varying types. A review of the results
was done to identity a schema for organizing the results into the
most limited number of categories that would place them into
logical categories with exclusivity. In consultation with two other
researchers the list was reviewed and analyzed for classification.
Through this continuing work we intend to refine and formalize the
identified categories that make up this schema for understanding
agents and entities influencing law enforcement agencies in the
United States.
4. METHODOLOGY
Data collection for law enforcement agencies and entities that
may be associated with them came through a variety of sources.
Sources included formal publications, web searches and article
reviews such as in the following table:
5. RESULTING TYPOLOGY
The typology proposed includes the major categories of: Law
enforcement, Government, Quasi-Government, Media,
Associations, Vendors, and People. These identified categories are
described in the following table:
Table 2: Sources
Source
Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Publications - FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin.
(n.d.).
NAPO : National
Association of Police
Organizations.
Open Directory Society: Law: Law
Enforcement:
Organizations.
Police & Law
Enforcement Officer.com: Police
News, Forums, Links &
More for Police
Officers, Law
Enforcement,
Corrections, Sheriffs &
More.
Police Magazines and
Publications.
Police: Organization
and Management - The
American System Of
Policing, Variation In
Style And Structure,
Managing Police
Organizations,
Information
Technologies And The
Police.
U.S. Government
Bookstore: Law
Enforcement
Publications from the
Federal Government.
Retrieved from
August 24, 2009, from
http://fbi.gov/publications/leb/le
b.htm
August 24, 2009, from
http://www.napo.org/
August 24, 2009, from
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/La
w/Law_Enforcement/Organizati
ons/
August 24, 2009, from
http://www.officer.com/
Table 1: Categories of Agents and Entities
Category
Law Enforcement
Media
Government
QuasiGovernment
Associations
August 24, 2009, from
http://mainesecurity.com/Police_
Magazines_and_Publications.ht
m
August 24, 2009, from
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1675/
Police-OrganizationManagement.html
Vendors
People
August 24, 2009, from
http://bookstore.gpo.gov/collecti
ons/crime-prevention.jsp
Description or included entities
Outside US Agencies, Special
Jurisdiction, Federal, Tribal, State,
County, City, Town, Village
Local News Media, National News
Media, Entertainment Media - News
Like, Entertainment Media - Shows,
Broadcast TV, Blogs, Online News
Media, Online - i.e. YouTube, Web Sites
Village Government, Town Government,
City Government, County Level
Government, State Level Government,
Federal Level Government, Tribal
Governance, School District, Fire
District, Other Special Government Unit
Power Company, Water Authority,
Telecommunications Providers, Postal
Service, Rail Service
Police Benevolent Associations, Unions,
Professional Associations Agency,
Professional Associations Individual,
Collaborative Partnership Associations,
Supportive , Lobbies Citizen Advocacy
groups, Religious, Political
General Businesses & Service Providers:
Training and Research, Equipment and
Tools, Hardware Providers
Communications , Software Providers
Data and Communication, Supportive
Services Health, Maintenance and
Contract Services, Consultants, Insurance,
Retirement
Citizens, Family, Friends, Bad Guys Criminal Element
5. CONCLUSION
The greater goal is to improve the functioning of law enforcement
operations in this country. Seven distinctive categories are
identified as a format for analysis and discussion. The typology
may be used as a basis for further research in the area of law
enforcement organizational behavior, policy development and
program implementation. This work should lead to a more
formal taxonomy for understanding these relationships, aid in
theory development and stimulate thinking in this area.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary Spanning Roles and
Organization Structure. The Academy of Management
Review, 2(2), 217-230.
Clark, J. P. (1965). Isolation of the Police: A Comparison of the
British and American Situations. Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science, 56, 307.
McKelvey, B. (1975). Guidelines for the Empirical Classification
of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
20(4), 509-525.
Mills, P. K., & Newton Margulies. (1980). Toward a Core
Typology of Service Organizations. The Academy of
Management Review, 5(2), 255-265.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969). An Empirical
Taxonomy of Structures of Work Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 115-126.
Reiss, A. J. (1992). Police Organization in the Twentieth Century.
Crime and Justice, 15, 51-97.